TB7-02727

TB7-02727

The RAD confirmed the RPD because (1) the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supportable given material inconsistencies, implausible explanations, and unreliable or fraudulent supporting documents; (2) the proposed new evidence did not meet admissibility or credibility thresholds and was given no weight; and (3) a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Lagos or Port Harcourt, so the Appellants failed to establish a well‑founded fear or need for protection under ss.96‑97 IRPA.

Citation
TB7-02727
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Minor Appellant: XXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Final Decision by RAD Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Admissibility of New Evidence, Appellate Standard of Review, Bias Allegations, Sexual Orientation Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Admissibility of New Evidence Appellate Standard of Review Bias Allegations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Minor Appellant

XXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Final Decision by RAD Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether there is an objective basis for the claimed fear of persecution
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Nigeria (Lagos or Port Harcourt)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because (1) the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supportable given material inconsistencies, implausible explanations, and unreliable or fraudulent supporting documents; (2) the proposed new evidence did not meet admissibility or credibility thresholds and was given no weight; and (3) a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Lagos or Port Harcourt, so the Appellants failed to establish a well‑founded fear or need for protection under ss.96‑97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) IRPA
  • Proposed new evidence (email correspondence, photographs, news articles) given no weight and not admitted for purposes of establishing risk